Whyte mandatory will be ordered in 2021

[kafkod]

Read what I linked too about Ortiz-Whyte please.

Ok, I read that article and what you said is correct, it doesn't mention anything about the "second mandatory" position. I'm pretty sure other Bscene articles did though, and it was widely reported elsewhere, like here at ESPN.

https://www.espn.co.uk/boxing/story/...status-updates

"The organization ordered a final heavyweight title elimination fight between England's Dillian Whyte (23-1, 17 KOs) and Miami-based Cuban defector Luis "King Kong" Ortiz (28-1, 24 KOs) for the right to become the division's second mandatory challenger behind Dominic Breazeale for the right to challenge titlist Deontay Wilder. Ortiz is coming off a highly competitive 10th-round knockout loss to Wilder on March 3."

At that point, Wilder vs Breazeale hadn't yet been ordered, and Whyte responded to the WBC order for him to fight Ortiz by saying he had already fought 2 WBC eliminators, won the WBC Silver title, and he wasn't interested in fighting Ortiz in a final eliminator with a 50/50 purse split unless it did what it said on the tin .. made him Wilder's next mandatory challenger.

[kafkod]

Winning a final eliminator guarantees you a title shot. It doesn't necessarily guarantee you the next title shot. Breazeale was already mandatory because he won a final eliminator. Whyte was never going to become mandatory without winning a final eliminator and was always going to have to wait until after Breazeale.




No, it's not. Final eliminator = guaranteed title shot. It doesn't necessarily mean next title shot.




If he really believed that, it's only because Eddie Hearn lied to him. Holding the silver title doesn't give you the automatic right to a mandatory shot. Holding the silver title gives you the automatic right to a high rating so you can hopefully be in position for eliminators.

UK fans are so gullible. Hearn lies to you guys day in and day out and you repeat his lies as the gospel.

Had WBC spelled out exactly what winning a Silver title meant, and what the holder was entitled to?

If they hadn't then why call Hearn a liar because he didn't know about it?

Is there any WBC rule that says nobody can become a mandatory challenger without winning a final eliminator?

[DARTH SILKWORMS]

Had WBC spelled out exactly what winning a Silver title meant, and what the holder was entitled to?

The silver title has existed for a decade at this point and has always entitled the titleholder to a high rating. It has never, ever, entitled the titleholder to a title shot.

If they hadn't then why call Hearn a liar because he didn't know about it?

Oh come on dude . . . Hearn knows the sanctioning body rules inside and out. He never for a second believed winning the silver title made you the automatic mandatory. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of silver champions at this point. How many were given an automatic title shot by becoming silver champion without winning a final eliminator? Zero.

Is there any WBC rule that says nobody can become a mandatory challenger without winning a final eliminator?

WBC rules say the only way to get an automatic title shot is to win a final eliminator. You can also become mandatory by a special vote of the board governors if you're a superstar held in high regard by the WBC, something Dillian Whyte was never going to qualify for.

[kafkod]

The silver title has existed for a decade at this point and has always entitled the titleholder to a high rating. It has never, ever, entitled the titleholder to a title shot.

Oh come on dude . . . Hearn knows the sanctioning body rules inside and out. He never for a second believed winning the silver title made you the automatic mandatory. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of silver champions at this point. How many were given an automatic title shot by becoming silver champion without winning a final eliminator? Zero.

How can Hearn or anybody else be expected to know the rules on WBC titles inside out when the WBC never publish them and the President himself can only answer "I'm confused too, let's see how it goes" when asked for an explanation of the franchise championship rules by reporters??

WBC rules say the only way to get an automatic title shot is to win a final eliminator. You can also become mandatory by a special vote of the board governors if you're a superstar held in high regard by the WBC, something Dillian Whyte was never going to qualify for.

Was Kovalev a superstar held in high regard when he was made Stevenson's mando without beating anybody in a final eliminator?

Who did Bermane Stiverne win a final eliminator against to become mandatory for Wilder before their second fight?



At the end of the day, all I'm saying here is that Dillian Whyte never turned down a final eliminator for the WBC mandatory position against Ortiz because he was never offered one.

[Bmore18]

[QUOTE=kafkod;20171975]We're talking about the WBC title. Whyte was never offered a bona fide final eliminator by the WBC.

But, in case you missed the news, Ortiz also turned down a title shot with AJ for a lot more money than Dillian was offered.[/QUOTE]

I think we can all agree they are both idiots for not taking that chance.

[DARTH SILKWORMS]

How can Hearn or anybody else be expected to know the rules on WBC titles inside out when the WBC never publish them and the President himself can only answer "I'm confused too, let's see how it goes" when asked for an explanation of the franchise championship rules by reporters??

The WBC rules are very clearly published on their website. Hearn knows UK fans don't know the rules, so he can get away with constantly lying. He's doing it right now by claiming the Ruiz/Joshua rematch winner will have to vacate a belt since two mandatories are due, even though Hearn knows that's a giant lie. When two mandatories are due, there is a federal court order stating it is illegal to strip the fighter for not being able to fight both mandatories at the same time.

Sulaiman admitted there is confusion about whether Canelo or Lomachenko can be "undisputed" champion while holding the WBC franchise title and not the WBC world title, but that's really up to the media and fans, not the WBC. The WBC has no control over what others consider undisputed or not.

Was Kovalev a superstar held in high regard when he was made Stevenson's mando without beating anybody in a final eliminator?

As usual, you don't have your facts straight. Kovalev won a final eliminator to become Stevenson's mandatory.

https://www.***************.net/2015...for-stevenson/

"WBC sanction Kovalev v Pascal as final eliminator for Stevenson"

[kafkod]

The WBC rules are very clearly published on their website. Hearn knows UK fans don't know the rules, so he can get away with constantly lying. He's doing it right now by claiming the Ruiz/Joshua rematch winner will have to vacate a belt since two mandatories are due, even though Hearn knows that's a giant lie. When two mandatories are due, there is a federal court order stating it is illegal to strip the fighter for not being able to fight both mandatories at the same time.

Sulaiman admitted there is confusion about whether Canelo or Lomachenko can be "undisputed" champion while holding the WBC franchise title and not the WBC world title, but that's really up to the media and fans, not the WBC. The WBC has no control over what others consider undisputed or not.




As usual, you don't have your facts straight. Kovalev won a final eliminator to become Stevenson's mandatory.

https://www.***************.net/2015...for-stevenson/

"WBC sanction Kovalev v Pascal as final eliminator for Stevenson"

If the WBC rules on their secondary title belts ..Silver, Interim, Diamond, etc are "clearly published" at their website, then please find them and post links to them here. Because I've looked, and I can't find them. You also need to remember that the WBC change their rules continuously. Just because a rule applies now, that doesn't mean it must also have applied 2 years ago.

Fair play on Kovalev vs Pascal. But what about Stiverne?

You said that nobody can become a WBC mandatory challenger without winning a final eliminator.

So who did Stiverne beat in a final eliminator to become Wilder's mando before their second fight?

I agree that Hearn seems to be bullshitting on the WBO vs IBF mando situation. But I'm not using "Hearn said it, so it must be true" to back up my comments here, so that's not relevant to the conversation.

You though, are being extremely naive, gullible and biased in your attitude to this. So Hearn sometimes talks bullshit. Fair enough.

But what about the WBC? Are they paragons of virtue, honesty and fair play? Wise up, ffs!

And you have still not addressed the main point of my comments in this thread, which is that Dillian Whyte never turned down a final eliminator for the mando position against Ortiz, because he was never offered one.

[kafkod]

[QUOTE=Bmore18;20175802]

We're talking about the WBC title. Whyte was never offered a bona fide final eliminator by the WBC.

But, in case you missed the news, Ortiz also turned down a title shot with AJ for a lot more money than Dillian was offered.[/QUOTE]

I think we can all agree they are both idiots for not taking that chance.

Absolutely.

[Jim Tom]

... per the WBC.

Whyte is very fortunate for a guy who avoided two final eliminators, failed multiple PED tests in his career and refused to have his gloves inspected in his last fight.

Making sure Whyte is 6 feet under before granting him his mandatory.

[DARTH SILKWORMS]

If the WBC rules on their secondary title belts ..Silver, Interim, Diamond, etc are "clearly published" at their website, then please find them and post links to them here. Because I've looked, and I can't find them.

Rule 3.23:

A Silver Champion shall not be a mandatory contender for the WBC World Championship absent winning a final elimination bout for the World title, unless a written exception has been authorized by a majority vote of the WBC Board of Governors in its sole discretion.

Fair play on Kovalev vs Pascal. But what about Stiverne?

Povetkin vs. Stiverne was a final eliminator. Because Povetkin cheated and the fight was canceled on one day notice, after Stiverne had already completed a full training camp, traveled, paid sparring partners, etc, Stiverne threatened to sue over the cancelation. Because Wilder was already overdue for a mandatory defense due to a different Povetkin drug test failure, it was ruled that Stiverne was essentially the winner of the final eliminator by default due to Povetkin cheating a second time. That's how Stiverne became mandatory.

But what about the WBC? Are they paragons of virtue, honesty and fair play? Wise up, ffs!

After the Rocchigiani lawsuit, the WBC has had to be very careful about following their rules, keeping promises to fighters, etc. Just as the IBF had to straighten up after the Bob Lee indictment.

Whyte won a semi-final eliminator. Breazeale won a final eliminator. Whyte was offered numerous final eliminators to become the mandatory after Breazeale. He turned them down. He instead waited for Breazeale to get his shot and then finally agreed to fight a final eliminator against Rivas. Which still meant being mandatory after Breazeale.